Tobin wrote:That is exactly the problem with these guys that believe in this God. This God is worthless. It is a fiction, a fantasy, a fraud, and certainly not the God of the scriptures which had an active hand in the affairs of mankind and would appear and speak with them. A God that does nothing, speaks to no-one, and can not demonstrate he exists is pointless.
So I take it that in order for you to believe in God He must prove to your satisfaction that He exist. So the fact that we are in a universe means nothing. The argument that everything has always existed in some form is your belief. The universe did not create itself. So you must believe that it has always been here. If indeed you hold this view then we have no reason to be here and we are the result of accidental processes. That is one way to look at all of the creation. I have to ask how does that make you feel when you embrace the idea that we are a temporary assortment of atoms and we will return to dust and cease to exist as an individual when we die? Many have looked at this logic and determined for them self that life does have meaning and there must be a purpose. They seek answers beyond what they see and can touch. I am one of those who refused to believe that the universe is all there is. I see the universe as a created thing. So to seek the Creator means I must look beyond the thing created. It is not an easy path and many find false doctrines along the way. If you seek the Creator in the thing created you have lost your way. The created thing is not a path to the power of the Creator. You are just one of many who tell me that God does not exist because you can't find Him. But have you ever considered that the problem is in your methods?
Tobin wrote:That is exactly the problem with these guys that believe in this God. This God is worthless. It is a fiction, a fantasy, a fraud, and certainly not the God of the scriptures which had an active hand in the affairs of mankind and would appear and speak with them. A God that does nothing, speaks to no-one, and can not demonstrate he exists is pointless.
So I take it that in order for you to believe in God He must prove to your satisfaction that He exist. So the fact that we are in a universe means nothing. The argument that everything has always existed in some form is your belief. The universe did not create itself. So you must believe that it has always been here. If indeed you hold this view then we have no reason to be here and we are the result of accidental processes. That is one way to look at all of the creation. I have to ask how does that make you feel when you embrace the idea that we are a temporary assortment of atoms and we will return to dust and cease to exist as an individual when we die? Many have looked at this logic and determined for them self that life does have meaning and there must be a purpose. They seek answers beyond what they see and can touch. I am one of those who refused to believe that the universe is all there is. I see the universe as a created thing. So to seek the Creator means I must look beyond the thing created. It is not an easy path and many find false doctrines along the way. If you seek the Creator in the thing created you have lost your way. The created thing is not a path to the power of the Creator. You are just one of many who tell me that God does not exist because you can't find Him. But have you ever considered that the problem is in your methods?
If your assertion is that God does nothing, creates nothing, and appears to no-one, yes - I do not believe in your God what-so-ever. It is a completely useless fiction and I find no value in it what-so-ever.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Franktalk wrote: The problem is simple. You deny that God has supernatural powers. There are many who hold that same view. It is an extension of an ancient thought. Many feel that they will only believe what they actually see or if information comes from someone they trust. Just who do you trust?
Drifing understands the issue here. Why can't you. It's not about whether God has supernatural powers, but why there is so much evidence that a global flood did not happen. This first point is that humans didn't disappear and then start to reappear where Noah would have gotten off the Ark. Try dealing with this problem, but then you don't accept any evidence that does not fit what you want to believe.
I can see that you don't trust the scriptures.
Which set of scriptures. Yours? Someones Else's? Which God should I trust, and why?
In my world man has and will continue to declare he knows things and has processes all figured out. But those same men will find some new thing and change all of their beliefs. So the ground is solid one place and then the ground is solid somewhere else. I find it fascinating how some will with absolute authority declare a truth just to change their mind and declare some other thing an absolute truth. So they are ready at a moments notice to believe something else yet demand that I accept their temporary truth without question. Does it strike you as odd? I guess maybe it does not strike you as odd. Some get so buried in the process that they miss the big picture,
You are describing your fantasy world here. Scientific knowledge is actually very stable in many areas. Only on the fringes where knowledge is still sparse do we see more change with new information. Much of the evidence we see showing no global flood occur have been well established and have not changed. I suspect the basic laws of physics will not be changing anytime soon.
Drifting wrote:There is no visible break in the life span of civilizations around the globe. If a worldwide flood, designed to rid the world of everyone except Noah and his family, took place then life (all life) should have ended suddenly and not started again for hundeds if not thousands of years later, when Noah and his family had done enough procreating to repopulate the planet.
God's supernatural powers do not explain this lack of a break in life.
I have to ask how you are so certain about what you say? You say there are no breaks in ancient civilizations so there could be no flood. But that statement rest on the analysis of trace bits of things we find buried in dirt and rock. But what if the interpretation of those trace bits is wrong? Are you willing to accept somebody else's opinion as fact and bet your soul on their analysis? Better yet you will actively argue your opinion and try and destroy the faith of others? If indeed you follow the scientific path then why post here with a thread that deals with the Kingdom of God? If indeed there is no God and all of us who believe are lost then why waste your time here? Would it not serve you better to be on a site that is based on science so you can learn more of man's truth? Or is there something else going on here? What drives you to be anti-god? I say that because you deny that God has supernatural powers. Because if God does have supernatural powers and those powers have been used on the earth then all of the scientific analysis of the past is in error. Since you reject this possibility you must reject the powers of God. Am I wrong?
Drifting wrote:There is no visible break in the life span of civilizations around the globe. If a worldwide flood, designed to rid the world of everyone except Noah and his family, took place then life (all life) should have ended suddenly and not started again for hundeds if not thousands of years later, when Noah and his family had done enough procreating to repopulate the planet.
God's supernatural powers do not explain this lack of a break in life.
I have to ask how you are so certain about what you say? You say there are no breaks in ancient civilizations so there could be no flood. But that statement rest on the analysis of trace bits of things we find buried in dirt and rock. But what if the interpretation of those trace bits is wrong? Are you willing to accept somebody else's opinion as fact and bet your soul on their analysis? Better yet you will actively argue your opinion and try and destroy the faith of others? If indeed you follow the scientific path then why post here with a thread that deals with the Kingdom of God? If indeed there is no God and all of us who believe are lost then why waste your time here? Would it not serve you better to be on a site that is based on science so you can learn more of man's truth? Or is there something else going on here? What drives you to be anti-god? I say that because you deny that God has supernatural powers. Because if God does have supernatural powers and those powers have been used on the earth then all of the scientific analysis of the past is in error. Since you reject this possibility you must reject the powers of God. Am I wrong?
It's a matter of physics. If the laws of physics don't work, then maybe possibly there was a flood. But if the laws of physics didn't work, we wouldn't have been able to harness the power of the atom or put people in space.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Themis wrote:You are describing your fantasy world here. Scientific knowledge is actually very stable in many areas. Only on the fringes where knowledge is still sparse do we see more change with new information. Much of the evidence we see showing no global flood occur have been well established and have not changed. I suspect the basic laws of physics will not be changing anytime soon.
But I believe that the basic laws of physics will change. You believe they will not change. You also believe that the laws were the same going back into the past. I am pretty sure they were different then as well.
There have been some major floods on the earth recorded in the rocks and landscape. I wonder if you know about them?
From a scientific viewpoint this is what many believe:
One has to wonder why these guys quoted Lester King as well.
And three more as described in the Nasa link.
So if the earth has been flattened six times that we know of by water I find it odd that you hold to a belief that there is no evidence. Maybe you just disagree with the dates? But that is another discussion.
Drifting wrote:There is no visible break in the life span of civilizations around the globe. If a worldwide flood, designed to rid the world of everyone except Noah and his family, took place then life (all life) should have ended suddenly and not started again for hundeds if not thousands of years later, when Noah and his family had done enough procreating to repopulate the planet.
God's supernatural powers do not explain this lack of a break in life.
I have to ask how you are so certain about what you say?
The Holy Spirit confirmed I was right.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Buffalo wrote:It's a matter of physics. If the laws of physics don't work, then maybe possibly there was a flood. But if the laws of physics didn't work, we wouldn't have been able to harness the power of the atom or put people in space.
I suspect things are way more complex than we can imagine. I think we are just getting to the point where we may start to understand the big picture.
Drifting wrote:The Holy Spirit confirmed I was right.
I like it when the Holy Spirit moves me. I hope it works out well for you and the confirmation you received. I guess you are special. I have had no communication with the Holy Ghost on any issues dealing with geology.
